[HiC]

Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades, minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit to make
their career happen.

What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label has put the
artist on the back burner.

What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay, what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen, etc.

I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? And if they determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their interest to find
someone else?

What also strikes me is how vague the management company seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense. This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.

Thoughts, experiences, etc.?

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_12_]]

The personal manager works for the artist and gets a cut of
what the artist gets from the record deal. If the band is
dying the manager is not getting any money so he moves on.

The record company usually hires a producer to help the band
make a good record. The band's manager helps them get what
they want from the record label.

Having the record label hire the manager sounds like this
label is run by the Neocon Nazi Republicons and the band is
smart as dirt.


Try this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business.../dp/0964870908

It explains a lot of stuff you may think you know.

peace
dawg


"HiC" wrote in message
...
Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album
gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash
of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard
of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an
audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades,
minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store
openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit
to make
their career happen.

What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned
them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That
this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label
has put the
artist on the back burner.

What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow
this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since
they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the
artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay,
what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their
behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen,
etc.

I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between
the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm
told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't
the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the
label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? And if they
determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their
interest to find
someone else?

What also strikes me is how vague the management company
seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is
correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying
why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just
basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to
have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense.
This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.

Thoughts, experiences, etc.?

[Henry Salvia]

Hmm, this sounds like an "American Iold" kind of deal.
In the old days, it would be a conflict of interest for a manager to
work for both the label and the artist, for exactly the situation you
describe below. The manager has to represent and promote the interests
of the artist, which (suprise!) can differ from the label's.

But that was then, and this is now. What you describe below as what you
think is in the label's interest was true up until the late 20th
century,
but as the major lables were merged into larger corporate entities, the
focus on the bottom line gradually replaced "artist development", and
underperforming artists won't last long at most record labels.

It sounds like that band really needs to find new management in a hurry,
if that's possible. And probably a different entertainment lawyer to
review their contract.

Henry Salvia
http://houstonjones.com/

HiC wrote:

Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades, minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit to make
their career happen.

What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label has put the
artist on the back burner.

What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay, what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen, etc.

I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? And if they determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their interest to find
someone else?

What also strikes me is how vague the management company seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense. This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.

Thoughts, experiences, etc.?

[Scott Dorsey]

HiC wrote:
Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades, minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit to make
their career happen.

Okay.

What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label has put the
artist on the back burner.

This is bad. The problem with this is that it's the band's fault,
because the band has _hired_ the manager and is expecting to get service
from the manager. And they aren't getting what they are paying for.

What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay, what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen, etc.

That would the A&R guy. Thirty or forty years ago, you could expect the
label A&R guy to take an active interest in a band, and to help along a
band that isn't doing so well in the market. Times have changed, and
A*R guys are seldom people who are music enthusiasts these days. They
are more apt to be interested in short term profits than anything else.

Now, this isn't true everywhere, and there are some labels that are
very different (even some big ones like Deutsche Grammophon), but
it's pretty common.

It's made worse by the fact that most labels today are hemhorraging
money right and left and a lot of them, big and small, are on the verge
of collapse.

I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? And if they determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their interest to find
someone else?

That doesn't sound like a real manager, that sounds like an A&R guy.
Does the band actually HAVE their own manager? If not, they might want
to get one really fast.

What also strikes me is how vague the management company seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense. This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.

Thoughts, experiences, etc.?

Who is paying the "manager?" Where is his money coming from?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Danny T]

On Apr 17, 6:05*pm, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
wrote:
The personal manager works for the artist and gets a cut of
what the artist gets from the record deal. If the band is
dying the manager is not getting any money so he moves on.

The record company usually hires a producer to help the band
make a good record. The band's manager helps them get what
they want from the record label.

Having the record label hire the manager sounds like this
label is run by the Neocon Nazi Republicons and the band is
smart as dirt.

Try this book.http://www.amazon.com/Music-Business...Softcover/dp/0...

It explains a lot of stuff you may think you know.

peace
dawg

"HiC" wrote in message

...

Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album
gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash
of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard
of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an
audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades,
minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store
openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit
to make
their career happen.

What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned
them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That
this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label
has put the
artist on the back burner.

What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow
this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since
they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the
artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay,
what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their
behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen,
etc.

I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between
the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm
told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't
the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the
label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? *And if they
determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their
interest to find
someone else?

What also strikes me is how vague the management company
seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is
correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying
why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just
basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to
have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense.
This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.

Thoughts, experiences, etc.?

Sounds like the Neocon Nazi Democrats to me :-) (I vote for neither -
just on issues) But I agree with you with one exception. The band
may not be dumb, just stuck in a crappy situation with no recourse.